The GPL cannot force somebody to release their source code.
You are mistaken if you believe that you can distribute an application built using GPL code and not release the source code (and all derived code) as well. In the event that you were confused by my wording, check again. I have attempted to clarify.
That's not what your original post said, and even now that you've edited it, it's still wrong. There is no requirement that Valve release source code for an internal development build, and just because GPL'd code was at one point used in Steam wouldn't prevent them from distributing it without source in the future.
The GPL isn't some magical infective uber-license; it's just plain copyright.
You are mistaken if you believe that you can distribute an application built using GPL code and not release the source code (and all derived code) as well. In the event that you were confused by my wording, check again. I have attempted to clarify.
That's not what your original post said, and even now that you've edited it, it's still wrong. There is no requirement that Valve release source code for an internal development build, and just because GPL'd code was at one point used in Steam wouldn't prevent them from distributing it without source in the future. The GPL isn't some magical infective uber-license; it's just plain copyright.
Right, it can't force them to release an internal build. But that's not what this is, it's an external beta. At this point they could still back out from releasing the source code if they wished, but not if they had used the GPL. If they had used a GPL program, they would at this point have to sacrifice a great deal of work to avoid releasing the source. That is my point. The GPL can force you to plan for things that you have no way of knowing about (For example, are we going to have to modify this program to couple with our internal APIs at a level that we don't want documented? Is the source code going to be ugly to an extent that it would be embarrassing to us to release it? etc.).
I wonder if this a step towards multi-platform Steam...
It doesn't matter how Steam is cross-platform as soon as no one bothers to develop games for other platforms. BTW about 10 years later none-console gaming will be such a niche we'll see less and less games, and only lemonade tycoon quality :)
I wonder if this a step towards multi-platform Steam...
It doesn't matter how Steam is cross-platform as soon as no one bothers to develop games for other platforms. BTW about 10 years later none-console gaming will be such a niche we'll see less and less games, and only lemonade tycoon quality :)
I guess you've never heard of World of Warcraft.
Cue a post explaining in detail why that "doesn't count" in 3... 2... 1...
Wow, that looks much better! Does anyone know how much better it performs compared to the IE-based client?
As far as subjective measurements go, it's night and day. Repainting is quicker, pages load faster, content (like images) streams in more quickly onto the screen, and the UI in general pauses less. It helps that they also overhauled the user interface so that it's easier to use, which makes it feel faster even if it actually isn't. I always speculated that a lot of the random pauses/hangs in the Steam UI were caused…
I tried using it earlier and it is a lot quicker. The only downside I've noticed is that an individual game sometimes takes up to 5 seconds to load, but I suspect it's my connection rather than the client itself.
There's OS X style close buttons and menu layouts in the Steam files now, so I'd guess that multiplatform Steam is a good bet.
I'll send a big bunch of flowers to the good peeps at Valve if they deliver Steam, TF2 and CSS for Mac OS X! I already bought these games, but wouldn't mind paying a bit more again just to cover the port costs.
FWIW, I use Wine via Code Weavers' Cross Over Games (http://www.codeweavers.com/) to play my Steam games on a few different older Mac laptops I have. It works pretty well.
One more bit of evidence that the GPL may not be the best thing for Open Source software. Think about it: if CEF used GPL, Valve might not have used it fearing that if they built Steam and decided they did not wish to release the source, they would have no choice but to not distribute Steam. With the BSD license, they could put in the work and decide once the project was complete whether or not to release the source…
The GPL cannot force somebody to release their source code.
GPL cannot force somebody to release their source code, as long as they are not supposed to have the binary (for example, internal studio - you can use binary tools compiled ith GPL, and be happy knowing that that stuff does not go outside of the company).
Specifically, they're using the Chromium Embedded Framework: http://code.google.com/p/chromiumembedded/ http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Chromium_Embedded_Fr... I'm looking forward to seeing them release the modified source. Always nice to see a game studio participate in the open source community.
One more bit of evidence that the GPL may not be the best thing for Open Source software. Think about it: if CEF used GPL, Valve might not have used it fearing that if they built Steam and decided they did not wish to release the source, they would have no choice but to not distribute Steam. With the BSD license, they could put in the work and decide once the project was complete whether or not to release the source…
If you don't see the irony in saying "GPL may not be the best thing for Open Source software" then you may not be fully grasping the issues.